The clarion., 1887-04-27

and alleging that his guardian,
O'Neal. has failed to faithfully account
with this court as to the management OF
petitioners estate; that 0'Neal has failed
and neglected to deliver up the property
of the estate, consisting of personality
alone, TO petitioner aS required by law,
and stipulated in his bond; that he has
failed and neglected to make a tlnal
settlement of guardianship. The ped-
ton prays for a final settlement and Tor
decree against O'Neal and his surety
on his guardians bond, John H.
Nunnery, for the amount found to oe
due petitioner. John II. Nunnery hay-
ing died after this petition was hled,
the suit was revived in the name OF q.
Z. Nunnery, administrator OF ). ID.
Nunnery The administrator thereupon
filed a plea setting up the seven year
statute of limitations. The cause was
set down for hearing on the s1fhclency
of this plea. The chancellor held the
plea insufficient and the defendant, Il.
E. Nunnery, appealed.
ARNOLD, J., delivered the opinion of
the Court.
Our statutes provides that the powers
and duties of guardian over the person
and estate of his ward, shall cease and
determine when the ward arrives at age
or marries, and that IN either event the
| guardian shall forthwith deliver to the
ward sll the property of every descrlp-
ton, in his hands belonging TO the ward,
and that on failure to do so, suit may
be brought on the guardians bond.
While suit may be brought on the bond
of the guardian for failure to comply
with the law, in this respect, the statute
does not relieve him from making tnsl
account and settlement with the court
but on the contrary, il requires that
such account and settlement shall then
be made When the ward reaches ma
iority or marries, the functions and au
thority of the guardian over the person
and estate of the ward, for the future
ends, and his obligation to make tina
account and settlement, for the pas
begins, and he remains guardian fol
such purpose, and the statute of limita
tiOn does not begin 10 run in favor oi
him or the suredes on his bond, unit
this is done. Aston v Aston, 81 Ala.
Is. The general rule is that the Office
of r trustee ceases only with the execu
! ton of his trust, and the duty of !
guardian as trustee to account anC
settle, continues until he has done so
and is discharged by order of the prope
court. Henderson V. Winchester, 3
Miss, 900. Davis V. Cheves, 81 Id.
BIZ benson V. benson, 30 Id, $50.
In cases of direct technical trusts, sucl
as exist between guardian and ward, th
statute of limitations does not rul
against the ceStui que trust in favor 0
J the trustee. The relations aud privit.
between them are such that the posses
2 sion Of the trustee is the possession 0
the cestui que trust, and mere neglect 0
= the trustee to perform the trust whicl
he has assumed, does not operate as
!. bar against the claim of the cestMt qu
5 trust Angell on Limitations, sec. lot
t , Perry on Trust, sec. S63. Jordan '
Mckenzie, % Miss, %.
The guardian in this case might hav
5 | been compelled to account after it bt
f came his duty to do so, at the instanc
T. of the sureties on his bond as well as
S tue ward, and the failure to compel th
+, accounting was as much the uegligenC
t of the sureties as of the ward. Newto
i V. Hammond, 50 Ohio St, 430 Chapi
{ Y. Hvermore, 13 Gray, sol.
= The statute of limitations of seve
t years would have been no defense to IL
O guardian, and so it was no defense
e his sureties. The decree is affirmed an
d the cause remanded for further pr
is ceedings.